The Rawlings panel recommmendation is unfeasible

The Rawlings panel’s recommendation for spending caps on operating expenses for specific sports is impractical and would hinder schools with rich athletic traditions.

This recommendation is among those in the report that is beyond the scope of the UNC athletic department and would have to be enacted on a national level.

Athletics have long been a big draw for alumni, and — more importantly — a major source of donations at many of the top programs in the country.

The vast majority of involved alumni pay more attention to the football team of their alma mater than to the research of its economics department, as backward as that may be.

So why enact a spending cap on an area that so many people are passionate about?

For better or worse, alumni have significant sway in the direction of their alma mater, and an NCAA-mandated spending cap could be met with vehement resistance.

If spending is limited on athletics that alumni have spent so much money contributing to in the past, they might be concerned about schools’ commitments to their valued cause.

A spending cap would unjustly level the athletic playing field for smaller schools that do not view athletics as a priority.

Punishing schools with rich athletic tradition by prohibiting them from fully using their superior resources is counterproductive.

UNC is in a position to use its national prominence to lead the charge in athletic reform.
But advocating ideas like this would only reduce its credibility.

As the current scapegoat for athletic scandal, UNC cannot just push any and all athletic reform simply because it is in such a vulnerable position, and the athletic department understands this.

It is UNC’s role to start with its own program, see what it can do at an institutional level, and then use its influence to engage in productive dialogues with other similar schools about realistic changes that can be made.

While the Rawlings panel’s report certainly provides a starting point for national athletic reform, some of its suggestions — the spending cap included — would deal unnecessarily crippling blows to flourishing athletics programs, despite good intentions.